Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed • Hacker News Board

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#211

Post by Manuel_D » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:36 AM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #210

Manuel_D wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 9th circuit upheld the use of automated license plate readers in US vs. Yang. The defense attempted to use Carpenter to argue against the legality of ALPR data, and failed: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/21... I really appreciate the irony of you alleging a "Google level understanding" on my part, when your own argument was tried in a court of appeals and failed.

Holy shit, I just realize you linked the wrong US vs Yang case. You googled, someone mentioned US v Yang, and you found a Seventh Court decision about a different case altogether, that had nothing to do with ALPR data or Carpenter, and linked it. Without reading the link. I knew the case so I didn't need to read the link to know you were wrong about it. Didn't bother to click it. That is ... absolutely hilarious.

I link the correct case here, in an earlier comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48636421 .

And you were evidently able to find the correct case regardless.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#212

Post by Eufrat » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:41 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #182

boring_twenties wrote: post #158

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever. Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking. Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as…

This is an extremely online belief. Oak Park, IL, the inner-ring suburb of Chicago where I live, is almost certainly one of the 10 most progressive and left-leaning municipalities in the country. Oak Parkers (not me) have the opposite concern: we're below our threshold number of sworn officers, and desperate to add more. The median Oak Parker has very positive views of the police (and also all the standard progressiv…

Oak Park. Home to Frank Lloyd Wright’s original studio/home and multiple works designed by him? Birthplace and hometown of Ernest Hemingway?

A municipality comparable to Berkeley, California or New Rochelle, New York?

What?

I agree with you that a blanket statement of not talking to the police is ridiculous, but arguing that Oak Park is a good representation outside of affluent America is not to be taken seriously.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#213

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 6:42 AM UTC

etchalon wrote: post #208

Manuel_D wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It established the precedence that use of automated license plate reader data does not require a warrant in at least some circumstances. The decision did mention that an overdue rental car has a lower expectation of privacy, but the court did not say that a warrant would have been required outside of that circumstance.

No it didn't. You keep insisting it "set a precedent" when the opinion explicitly cites precedent to say they don't need to set any precedent or make a novel ruling because existing precedent already establishes that there's no expectation of privacy in an overdue rental car in Yang's situation. The majority APPLIED existing precedent to the case facts. Please go actually read the opinion. If you do, you'll see the c…

[deleted]

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#214

Post by watwut » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:00 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #186

duld wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To clarify, you're stating that "Don't talk to the police" is an "extremely online belief"? Or were you referencing the dating portion of the comment?

Correct: "never talk to the police" is a very online belief. I watch people talk to police all the time . People go out of their way to do it. I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.

> I don't even know what to do with the "never date police officers" thing. Most police officers are married. It's a shift-work job, so they have high divorce rates, but they just remarry.

They have also unusually high domestic violence rates. That is where the bit comes from.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#215

Post by Teever » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:05 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #193

fzeroracer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying never talk to the police is an 'online belief' is frankly baffling. There are multiple examples of prominent law professors bringing in ex-police professionals who all say the exact same thing: never talk to the police. If you spend five minutes around a lawyer they will say the same thing. If you ever end up finding yourself in legal turmoil it is the very first thing a lawyer will directly advise you to do.…

Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. If you are in such a contest, those videos you've watched are quite useful and important. But when there's a hit and run on your block, expect your neighbors to go out of their way to volunteer information to the police. I've read threads here where people have made impassioned arguments that you yourself should never volunteer inf…

Surely there's more interesting conversation to be had here than just "your opinions about interacting with law enforcement are moot because I know people in my Chicago neighbourhood who disagree with them."

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#216

Post by watwut » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:06 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #193

fzeroracer wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying never talk to the police is an 'online belief' is frankly baffling. There are multiple examples of prominent law professors bringing in ex-police professionals who all say the exact same thing: never talk to the police. If you spend five minutes around a lawyer they will say the same thing. If you ever end up finding yourself in legal turmoil it is the very first thing a lawyer will directly advise you to do.…

Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police. If you are in such a contest, those videos you've watched are quite useful and important. But when there's a hit and run on your block, expect your neighbors to go out of their way to volunteer information to the police. I've read threads here where people have made impassioned arguments that you yourself should never volunteer inf…

> Most people simply don't see themselves as being in zero-sum contests with the police.

Yes, that is why they don't do it. It does not mean the advice is "terminally online". It is the advice coming from layers that deal with the system.

Layers saying those things, online and offline, are not terminally online.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#217

Post by ACCount37 » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:23 AM UTC

Gigachad wrote: post #78

dw_arthur wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority of crime is committed by a relatively small number of individuals. If citizens feel crime is out of control they need to vote in politicians and judges who sentence repeat offenders to long sentences or involuntary commitment.

Long sentences are far less effective than reliable enforcement. Something that seems to be very true in practice. If you steal or vandalise something in China, there is an extremely high chance you will get caught, you won't get a massive penalty, but it will be enough to cover the damages + some. If you for example knew that stealing had a penalty of 100% of the item value + 10% fine, with a 100% chance of getting…

Long sentences and reliable enforcement are complimentary.

If you can reliably prosecute the repeat offenders you catch, and put them behind bars for a long time? You stop them from committing more crimes. The crime rate falls, and the amount of enforcement manpower you have available per crime rises. Making it easier to catch and prosecute the remaining offenders.

Most of the low level crime isn't done by "a dumb decision as a teenager or in a lapse of judgement". It's done by someone who has done it 5 times before and will do it again. Unless jailed, that is. The jail doesn't fix whatever's wrong with them, but it is hard to keep doing crimes while behind bars.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#218

Post by gavinsyancey » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:29 AM UTC

bigbadfeline wrote: post #187

arjie wrote: post #30

Ultimately, there’s a sort of homeostasis in people’s tolerance for crime. If you need video evidence for prosecution, those who want it prosecuted will produce video cameras. If you make warrants impossible to produce in a timely manner, the camera search will be warrant exempted. Attempts to damage state power to ensure crime isn’t prosecuted will be likely met with methods that are immune to them. Given the constr…

> Given the constraints we operate under, the ideal number of unsolved crimes is not zero and the ideal number of crimes committed using state apparatus is also not zero. That statement doesn't make any sense. What's the ideal number? +Infinity? "Not zero" includes that too. There has to be a way to place a ceiling on the number, asking for a non-zero "ideal" doesn't do that, on the contrary, it hides the all importa…

The point the poster is trying to make by "the ideal number ... is not zero" is:

There is a trade-off where a more complete and accessible surveillance apparatus could allow crimes to be solved but invites the system to be abused by police. So when we think about how much of a surveillance system we as a society want to allow, it is probably somewhere between "nothing" and "everything". Therefore,

- It is worth allowing some crimes to go unsolved in order to prevent abuse of the surveillance state. ("The ideal amount of unsolved crime is not zero")

- It might be worth allowing enough surveillance that it will inevitably be abused to some degree in order to help solve crime. ("The ideal amount of abuse of surveillance is not zero")

Thus instead of centering discussions around "thing bad", it's probably more productive to talk about how we can get as much as possible of the upside while reigning in a use, and considering where we want the tradeoff to be.

Given the power dynamics at play I'm not convinced I agree -- Flock is closely associated with Peter Thiel who is explicitly anti-democracy, and police are notorious for covering up crimes committed by fellow police. But I suppose it is worth considering that safe ethical surveillance (if it existed) could have some value, while keeping in mind that what we are getting is very far from that.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#219

Post by kstenerud » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:52 AM UTC

boring_twenties wrote: post #158

This shouldn't be hard to understand. Don't talk to the police, without your attorney present, under any circumstances whatsoever. Dating the police is just such an astoundingly egregious violation of this principle that I can only wonder what, if anything, those people are thinking. Anyway, the key takeaway seems to don't date anyone who dates the police. Firstly, because it directly puts your own safety at risk, as…

Wow. I've heard some pretty egregious victim blaming before, but this really takes the cake.

Re: Flock-Powered Police Chiefs Stalking Women Shows Why Warrants Are Needed

#220

Post by calgoo » Tue, Jun 23, 2026, 7:54 AM UTC

evilduck wrote: post #162

alexpotato wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To use a corporate example: People act like the only options are: - make it so hard to log in that no one can use a system - just give everyone root access You can build systems of approval that are fast, obvious who should be approving and are auditable.

You can also build systems that require secondary approvals without needing approval escalation up the chain. Creeping on women is a lot less likely if you need a peer or even a subordinate to review what you're doing.

They will just find some other creepy friend that will sign off without looking, in exchange for them getting the same treatment. It needs to go to a different system, with different priorities, but even then we know of corrupt judges rubber stamping warrants.

Why dont we have a AI verify that each search is tied to a real case, and if its not block their access and they now have to go before a judge to explain why they should be unblocked and what they where doing. If they are going to use AI against us, then we should use AI to make sure they dont commit any crimes.